I might need a tin foil hat. But it occurred to me that Gamergate might be a conspiracy to ruin the reputation of gamers. At the very least that is the only thing I see that the movement succeeds in doing. I had hoped the whole tainted thing might go away, but then Gamergate succeeded to go mainstream by getting Intel to pull their ads from Gamasutra.

Some of you might claim that Gamergate is a movement that is fighting corruption in video game journalism. Unfortunately that claim just fell under an Intel bus. Gamasutra is not a specifically corrupt gaming journalism site. The protests from gamers that pressured Intel to pull their ads from Gamasutra were not about corruption, but about a feminist opinion article on the site. Intel pulled the adds without mentioning corruption, but mentioned the pressure from gamers complaining about feminists and "social justice warriors". Which means that even the most neutral journalist of the non-gaming press is now identifying Gamergate as an "anti-feminist" movement.

There is a certain irony to this Gamergate "victory": A movement that pretends to be against big companies influencing video game reporting with advertising money pressures are big company to try to influence video game reporting with advertising money. How is using money to corrupt video game journalists to not dare to mention certain political opinions any different from using money to corrupt video game journalist to not dare to mention certain opinions about the quality of a game?

As somebody who spends a significant part of his life playing games, thinking about games, and writing about games, Gamergate increasingly makes me uncomfortable to identify myself as a "gamer". If, as they should, Gamasutra is now showing a middle finger to Intel and telling them that they won't be bullied, which side do you think looks like the "anti-corruption" one? How long do you think it will take for the other side to discover that they can use the Intel corporate responsibility form as well to complain to Intel about this decision? How many more people are going to read the "Gamers are over" article on Gamasutra now that it has become such a prominent target?

Was it worth to keep the discussion alive at the cost of throwing the central anti-corruption message overboard? If before Gamergate was an anti-corruption drive that was somewhat tainted by extreme right-wing anti-feminism and harassment, today the anti-feminist message is the only one that is left. The reputation of gamers has been ruined, they are now widely being identified as a group of people who not only hold misogynist opinions, but who also are willing to launch campaigns to silence free speech.

So tell me, are the Gamergaters just very bad at getting their message across, or are they out to ruin the reputation of gamers?

It's as if they're the villain of some overwrought JRPG story, where they see corruption everywhere and the only way to save the world is to destroy it. Because that's what they're doing by attacking a site primarily used as a game developer resource.

It's one thing if it's consumer-facing journalism (which is how it seems to get explained to me as the issue at hand), but how do you then explain attacking a website that's not devoted to reviewing games impartially, if such a thing could exist? No, clearly this is about people feeling attacked and lashing out, regardless of the consequences.

I suppose it depends on whether you regard Anna Sarkesian as a legitimate researcher deserving the award that Gamasutra advocated that she receive or you regard her as a disreputable fraud who plagiarized a lot of the content in her rather shallow videos and used disreputable tactics to portray herself as a victim and thereby promote herself and derive a significant amount of money for her and her boyfriend.

If you believe the latter then you are left wondering why on earth Gamasutra promoted her and arranged that award.

Wait a sec. Intel admittedly pulled an ad campaign because of complaints from self-identifying sexists?

Yes. Makes you wonder why you and me can see that this is a pretty dumb PR move from Intel which will result in an enormous backlash against them, while "Intel spokesperson Bill Calder" apparently is unaware of that possibility.

Using advertising money to censor opinions is wrong, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with that opinion.

That is a bit disingenuous. A withdrawal of advertising dollars is not the same as censorship. Intel has no obligation "to defend to the death" a given website's political machinations (however noble they may be).

The "reputation" of gamers is largely irrelevant in any case. This isn't the 90s anymore; we may as well be making broad generalizations about sports fans or those that read books.

Intel have sensibly withdrawn advertising from a site which abrasively insults its customers, and posts articles classing everyone who does not totally support their agenda-driven writers (and their friends) as an enemy, a misogynist, a troglodyte. How on earth does that conceivably translate into "today the anti-feminist message is all that's left"? Honestly, Tobold, you have more sense than this.

Intel has no obligation "to defend to the death" a given website's political machinations

Intel has no obligation to *defend* anybody. But by publicly withdrawing their advertising from a website that posts something controversial they are perceived as taking a side in the discussion. Not doing anything and just letting the advertising campaign run out its normal course would not have given out any signal.

Intel have sensibly withdrawn advertising

The one thing that this certainly wasn't was "sensible". Now the story has hit CNN and other major non-gaming news, and Intel is identified as being on the "bad side of history". They will get far more bad PR from this than they would have if they had done absolutely nothing. There are far more people likely to react angrily to perceived sexism than there are Gamergate sockpuppet accounts. Note also that gamers are far more like to use an AMD CPU instead of an Intel CPU than non-gamers.

Gamasutra did not "insult their customers", because gamers are neither the customers nor the target audience of Gamasutra. It is a site speaking specifically to game developers, and their customers are advertisers, not players. And even if they did insult people, why would it be Intel's job to punish them for that?

All I know is I'm getting pretty fed up with every gaming/news/etc site turning into nothing more than a vehicle for feminist propaganda.

I understand the feeling. And I don't agree with everything the feminists say. I find some of their methods objectionable, for example calling everybody sexist who doesn't agree with everything they say. Apparently I'm a sexist because I think that it's okay that the orcs on the Warlords of Draenor poster are male.

But I think where Gamergate went wrong was they ignored the first rule of internet discussion: "Don't feed the trolls!". If nobody had protested against it, how many people would have seen the Anita Sarkeesian video? How many people would have read the Leigh Alexander article? When the dust has settled, I'm pretty sure that Gamasutra will have made a lot more money from this controversy than what Intel did cost them. Not to mention the possibility that Intel will have to backpedal and launch another ad campaign with Gamasutra.

By using methods like harassment and attempted censorship, Gamergate puts itself in the wrong and actually promotes the cause of the feminists. Any message on game journalism ethics is forgotten.

Oh jeez. It's market forces. If Intel feels that they lose business by supporting sites who support a certain american style of post-feminism by all means should they pull their advertising.

This happens all the time. For example when Tiger Woods lost sponsoring due to his extramarital affairs or politicians losing financial backing due to offensive remarks.

Citing Voltaire to attack a miniscule subculture win in a fight between a subculture versus the powers of social mainstreaming is borderline insane.

(Let's just see how long it will take for 'social justice warriors' to show gamers how it is done, forcing Intel to completely reverse course...)

For the Sarkesians of this world there is no opinion but theirs allowed to be voiced. Their ilk is in its mindset as totalitarian as it gets. Gamers of course will learn that one way or another, they will be brought into the fold.

But I for one am not uncomfortable with gamers fighting back, I would be ashamed if my subculture just laid down and passively died.

But I think where Gamergate went wrong was they ignored the first rule of internet discussion: "Don't feed the trolls!". If nobody had protested against it, how many people would have seen the Anita Sarkeesian video?Now this on the other hand is completely true.

Tobold I find your posts on this confusing. When challenged by me a couple of weeks back you claimed to have read up on the subject. Yet you repeatedly post inaccurate or misleading information. I can’t work out if you are doing this deliberately (because you wish to push the anti-gamergate agenda) or if you genuinely haven’t read up on the subject or have only read the many biased articles out there from the side that control the gaming media.

You first claim that the Gamergate supporters “went mainstream” whilst for some mysterious reason failing to mention the fact that the corrupt journalists already had their friends and donors like Jenn Frank trashing gamers with the “tarring with the same brush” fallacy in the Guardian.

It must have slipped your mind?

Then you go on to comprehensively demonstrate that you do not have the first idea what the problem was with Gamasutra.

You have made absolutely no mention of the absolutely outrageous and disgraceful statements that were made by Leigh Alexander. Not even feminist statements. Rather racist bigoted statements, threatening to destroy the careers of numerous developers etc. That was why Intel were petitioned, Intel have made a statement as to why they withdrew advertising.

Again one can only guess as to why you failed to post the full details behind the petitioning of Intel and instead you chose to pass it off as “anti feminism” (note that real feminists have plenty to say about Leigh Alexander - you might want to check that out).

I think the 10 or so anti gamer articles were an attempt to destroy the image of gamers. However I've seen no evidence that the image of gaming has been damaged amongst the wider public.

Gaming is now mainstream. People that game (a large percentage of the population) know the truth. The mud flung by the journalists isn't sticking.

The Social Justice Extremists are those taking damage to their reputation.

have only read the many biased articles out there from the side that control the gaming media.

Woody, I wonder what media YOU are reading. The "anti-feminist" point of view might be an acceptable opinion in some niche places of the tiny corner of the internet that is talking about games. But if you read any regular newspaper, magazine, or news site, you would have noticed that "political correctness" has won the war years ago. If I would make an "anti-feminist" statement in my job, I would most likely get fired.

I get my information from various site which I DON'T pre-select by political or other bias. CNN is not a "gaming media" controlled by some side in this dispute. Nor is Boing Boing, or The Verge, or the New York Times, or Slate.

Do a simple experiment to open your horizon: Go to Google News and search for "Gamasutra, Intel". Which point of view do you find reported there? If anything, the one reading only "biased" articles appears to be you.

Can you explain why you linked to a Rick McCormick article (in the verge)?

You couldn't have posted a more biased source to "inform" your readers.

You know who he is and who he is linked to right?

You only have to view his Twitter to see who his friends are and who he is retweeting!

It is a "who's who" in the SJW community!

So I'd question again...was this deliberate or because you don't know who these people are?

Presumably you don't know who Matt "Weaponise Minorities" Lees is?!?!

The guy who insulted hundreds of minority (female, black, gay) gamers in his anti-gamer gate crusade!

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that this is an innocent error on your part as you probably don't know this stuff.

I totally understand if you have better things to do with your time than having to read up on this and cut through an almost impenetrable barrier of propaganda from those that have the entire gaming media on their side and are able to censor those that have opposing views.

Woody, as I said, I did a Google News search on Gamasutra, Intel. I certainly don't check out Twitter for news, because that is the worst source you could possibly find.

I'd be perfectly willing to link to any other source you name, under the condition that it comes up in that Google News search. Or do you consider Google News to be a "gaming site controlled by social justice warriors"?

You come over as somebody thinking that to get a fair and balanced view, one should read Fox News, and ONLY Fox News, and refuse to read any source that might report any other opinion.

Really, the first step to legitimizing your position is to retire the epithet of "social justice warrior." Every time you say that negatively, it sounds like you are a villain who hates social justice.

and an old and retired Marxist activist, I too see signs of entryism here - if I didn't know any better, I'd have thought that the whole #gamergate freakshow had been adopted as idea-of-the-month by the Institute of Ideas.

Because really, this is an own-goal so big that the movement, such as it might have ever been, is over: even the NRA have more credibility than someone now claiming to care about cronyism in game journalism.

Oh god, what you just said had so many unfamiliar terms in it that I had to look up a term every sentence.

So what you are saying was #gamergate was entryism-ed by the sexist and was created by the Institute of ideas, whos purpose is to debate controvertial ideas, for their debate of the month. However, the end goal is so big that it overwhelmed the movement and it has died? And now NRA have more credibility?

OK, so let me get this straight: Intel, an advertiser on Gamasutra(a site with obvious sexual connotations embedded in its own name), pulled its advertising due to backlash from supposed sexist gamers over an article written by a "female" working for said sexually con-notated website?

I didn't tell you where to find reliable sources. I merely highlighted that you posted a clearly biased and one sided story (Fact. We know who the author is) that was full of the same misleading information and bias that you have been posting on your blog. You have been duped as it appears as though you acquired all your information from one-side and falsely assumed such sources to be legitimate and balanced*.

You presumably don't know who the personalities are on each side and who their associates are.

I mention Twitter not as a source of news but as a method of investigating the sources you are relying on given that you clearly don't know who they are.

Although when one-side are censored from pretty much everywhere apart from Twitter it seems like an extremely arbitrary and biased aspersion on your part that the opinions they express on the only outlet open to them are somehow less reliable. I am sure the Chinese Govt. with its state controlled media could say the same thing about pro democracy activists who aren't able to access the mainstream news sources.

I'd question whether Google News could source non biased articles given that it likely provides results for the large sites that get the most clicks and which are controlled by one side - as evidenced by you finding an article written by someone who is up to his neck in one side of the debate.

Regardless of that it might be a good idea to check the source of these articles when you read them?

*If they were written by someone that is friends with those on one side of the debate and doesn't provide balanced opinion by offering up quotes from the opposing side (Journalism 101)...then well surely alarm bells should be ringing in your head? You can look for those most basic of ethical practices in any form of journalism before judging the validity of what you are reading.

Woody, please just go away. If you are unwilling to discuss or even just READ things that people with other opinions than you write, you have no place in the discussion on my blog.

Your supposition that every source I could possibly find with Google is one that is subverted by a giant conspiracy is just laughable. Sorry man, but the opinions you can find in the average Google News source it what counts as "mainstream". You can disagree with the mainstream, but continually babbling of conspiracy theories how the mainstream has been subverted just makes you sound like an extreme nutcase.

I unsubbed from /r/pcgaming because I was sick and tired of the #gamergate fuckers.

What makes it laughable to me is that this supposed crusade against "corruption in journalism" continually harps on about "SJW", which means, no, it's not about "journalism" despite your professed claims - it's about you being butthurt by the "SJW" people for some reason. You have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that women are scheming and colluding to destroy the great alphamale world of gaming when they dare suggest that "hey, we'd like to feel included".

If you cared about "journalist ethics" - why is it when bringing up the issue - you never mention the journalists, but instead chant Sarkeesian and Quinn's name over and over and over like some kind of mantra of hate? An obsession far beyond the seeming boundaries of normality for people who apparently aren't even interested in them

Were you all frothing at the mouth when Gamespot had the Kane/Lynch debacle? Were you up in arms then? Or were you like five years old then??? Of course we'll have some #gamergaters say they were angry then, and that's fine, bully for you. Keep up the good and noble fight against actual game corruption (how many of you were as frothy about it then as you are now, even if you were upset about it?)

That doesn't change the fact that looking from this side it sure does *seem* like it's a lot of hate directed at women, and not at the supposed journalists engaging in the reporting.

Secondly, if it's such an issue, why don't you go support sites that aren't "tainted" (I dunno, like Gamespot or IGN or whatever big name news sites that aren't affected, AFAIU).

In a functioning democracy there are enough voices for all - let us have polygon and gamasutra (which as mentioned above - is a site for DEVELOPERS not Gamers (in whatever guise that may be)).

Gamasutra has been a large advocate for independent gaming for years, and has grown and matured in that process. If it wasn't for the work of Gamasutra and the IGDA and GDC we would probably not have nearly as many awesome games to be playing these days. That's not to say they are the only reason, but as a community for developers (not gamers) they have helped inspire and grow the current development climate we have of congenial developers. The irony here is this fusion of developers and media is what you call "collusion" and "tainted media".

(Part 2)Third: Not only should you go read media that don't do the things you claim to abhor. SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO MAKE IT! Seriously - we live in the age of the fucking internet. The beauty of this is to go out there and create and make a world you want to see. Do you want a gaming press that is "independent" (if this truly is your goal) - then go fucking do it. Nobody is stopping you - you have every fucking right to say what you want. And if someone tells you no, you shouldn't, and you believe in your principles enough, then that shouldn't stop you. Bully for you.

But I'm not talking about fucking death and rape threats. I'm not talking about personal accusations and trolling and bigotry and hate. I mean honest to go reporting on fucking GAMES, because I am sick and tired of things like /r/pcgaming talking, not about GAMES but "SJW" and "#GamerGate" and whatever bullshit that IS NOT GAMES. But hey - if you want to devote a section of your little online mag to whatever relates to that, then fine, go ahead, it is your site.

But because that's "hard" and instead of actually doing solid work on reviewing games and doing so in an "unbiased" way (i.e. not having sex with women involved in the game industry, and demanding the right to have big titties in your games, apparently), you'd rather fucking go on reddit and whine and join your little hate mob to pressure a giant corporation to bully a smaller entity into doing what you want.

Yeah, the commenters above are right - fucking absolute hypocrisy. Doing probably WAY more damage to any attempt at partiality if Gamasutra did "fold" (whatever the fuck that means). Speaking of...

What do you want? Seriously? You keep harping on this and finding any little fucking niggling detail you can find to support your crusade, but what will make you happy? Seriously? Tell us what, exactly, do you want? You don't even have a fucking coherent set of demands, just a lot of hate and vague noise about "corruption in games journalism" (if one is to take you at your word).

If indie devs go back into a closed bubble and make games just for themselves amd forsake the whiny, entitled gamers (who of course, never act entitled when you call them such), I would be pleased as punch.

2- It's not uncommon for such movements to face the problem of getting defined by the fervor of the fringe believers. That's why successful movements have clear leaders who provide a clear and concise message. Otherwise, all it takes is one loudmouth spouting some hate and the whole group is tainted.

If indie devs go back into a closed bubble and make games just for themselves amd forsake the whiny, entitled gamers (who of course, never act entitled when you call them such), I would be pleased as punch.

I agree with a large portion of what you wrote, but if we're going to be fair here, let's not get freudian here when it comes to using labels. I'm talking about the "Indie" moniker here. Why does anyone who makes games deserve the "indie" label in the first place? Do they consider themselves to be "small time", or do they consider themselves to be a part of the game development world outside of this supposed "boys club" of game development? Or has the game development "press" or "journalists" been responsible for applying the "indie" label and it just kinda "stuck"?

One would think that at this point in time the term "indie" would have been done away with, either that, or these indie developers LIKE the aspect of being something "apart" from the mainstream development community.

Should expand, indie as a moniker often connotes both extremely limited resources (boo) but--usually--more control over your own creative freedom, as opposed to having to meet some vision the marketing department/CEO of a giant studio says you need to hit.

I guess - as someone who's "followed" the current indie scene when it first started to really thrive (2007-2008?), I guess what I mean in this sense is how it used to be, before Steam became a huge storefront for indie games.

I think there is difficulty in the terms (I think Tobold might have touched on it? I'm pretty sure I've seen discussion on the Rampant Coyote blog, at the very least).

Someone recently used the term Triple-I Indie. I like that.

I think we can categorize it this way:

1) Hobbyist - people like myself and others (who, unlike me, have actually completed a game) - doing it in their spare time, and maybe hoping to make some money, but mostly just doing it because they love to do it.

2) Small-Studio Indie: 1 to, I dunno, 5? people... An artist, a coder or two, someone for sound, something like that. A studio, for sure, but more than just a small hobbyist - hoping to recoup money. Maybe a PC game, maybe a mobile game, or something of that nature.

3) Large-Studio Indie/Triple-III - Grey area here - but at this level it's less about scraping by (don't get me wrong, I'm sure it is for some of the people) and more about self-publishing. Tim Schaefer is "indie" these days, but it's hard for me to consider him "indie" in the sense I'm thinking of. As a studio, I see this as what a AAA may have been in the 90s? Teams of former AAA games now coming together to make their own game (which is absolutely awesome, don't get me wrong), but I have hard time lumping that in with "indie"...

In this regards, I think Talarian is really hitting the nail on the head with both the two-fold scheme here: resources/creativity.

Overall I think Indie conveys a freedom of creativity, but obviously there are plenty of creative games that aren't indie. But the freedom one has being fully independent from a publisher means a studio has more of a chance to take a risk that might not otherwise be taken. I think this is what most people think of with "indie"...

So in my phrase, I'm referring to a breakdown by size of team and income/resources... In that sense, I guess, the hobbyist side of the indie bubble might go back to doing their thing and stepping away from the market as it is.

I think in some ways, this aspect ties in with the bubble we're hearing/discussing these days. This is a bit off-topic, in some ways, but yet I think there's certainly a tangential point to be made with these two aspects, especially as it seems that plenty of "indie" devs do feel a lack of control over their works, as their children, and in some ways, that the gamers are mobs with pitchforks(witness the hate towards Phil Fish, and the Puppygames blog post, for example). AAA devs aren't immune from this either, of course - I recall reading a post by someone who worked on one of the big shooters talking about the hate they receive from gamers.

I would love to think indie-gamers are a stronger community with a lot of love for games in and of themselves, but it seems that it gets so personal, and that's why I kind of hope that things shake out a bit, but I honestly don't know how they could. People play games - there's a market. I suppose you price them out by making more expensive indie-games, so that only those who are willing to pay the price will do so, and those only looking for quick fix of cheap fun will go elsewhere? Seems like a dumb idea, but just throwing it out there.

lol, I'm really getting old when I need to translate *everything* I write.

Entryism: joining a reasonably popular group (with friends :) ) to take it over and make it do your own bidding.Institute of Ideas: a group of far-left (very, very far left. even by my standards) who've decided to pretend to be right wing to take over (see: Entryism)libertarian/ centre-right groupings, as a means of 'bringing on the revolution faster'.

gamergate and gamasutra: by publicly forcing a big advertiser to *repudiate equality* as a reason for cancelling advertising, it is guaranteed that a: a lot of non-gaming people are suddenly going to pay attention; and b: *no-one* is going to think that either Intel or gamergate people are all that good, as fighting *against* social justice just makes you a bigot...

so while I might have a very different vision on the world than Tobold, we're in complete agreement on this: the intel-gamasutra advert thing is the ultimate in Pyrrhic victories.

Time will tell whether it's a Pyrrhic victory. But you know, in wartime when one side suffers a shocking - to them - defeat, screaming that it's only a "Pyrrhic victory" for the enemy is pretty much the standard response...

To do journalism, you need to research the facts behind the press releases and point out inaccuracies as needed. For example: "The Gamergate movement claims to be about corruption in the trade press, but their actions show that they're only interested in retaliating against perceived insults, especially from women." And then once you've established the context, you can follow-up by adding quotes.

I have long been "uncomfortable to identify myself as a "gamer"." I have always maintained that saying you are a gamer on a resume/job related discussion is a negative.

There are a number of nice people playing LotRO, but the people getting the press are the usual suspects from EVE, LoL, AA, gamergate et al.

I think mobile means the end of gamers (i.e. the 1337 hardcore who talk about being a gamer as something different than playing games.) Gamers being on the wrong side of history, and their reputation dropping, is certainly going to accelerate the decline.

Thanks for your concern, but considering how gamergate has been wildly successful at exposing the fraudulent hypocrisy of fake feminists and the idiot "journalists" who cover them, they'll continue doing what they're doing :)

symbioid said: I guess what I mean in this sense is how it used to be, before Steam became a huge storefront for indie games.

Well, the way you have this statement worded, I'm not sure if you are casting the "Steam effect" in a good light, or a bad light. Regardless, the Steam platform has been a blessing to the Indie scene with titles such as The Stanley Parable, whose earnings would make any other indie developer blush with envy.

Now, the question I would have for other "indie" developers, is where are all the women "indie" developers that are out there, and where are their games? Is there a barrier to entry, or is the "gaming press" seemingly just not giving female indie developers the proper coverage they so rightfully deserve?

If the former, I'd say shame on the game development community as a whole. If the latter, then we have bigger problems with the gaming press than even the gamergaters bring into question.

In my opinion, after reading Intel's apology, Intel's decision was specifically about Leigh Alexander. If Intel did their due diligence and spent more than the 30 minutes I spent researching her, then they probably wanted to bail on Gamasutra anyway. The "Gamers are dead" article she wrote, with the insults about "gamers", wasn't a one-time thing. I found an article published back in 2010 that basically stated the same thing, with the same type of insults. And it isn't just gamers she holds in contempt. She hates modern combat FPS games as well. She considers them war simulators that are morally repugnant and if she had her way game companies would no longer make them.

If a company like Intel is going to advertise on a site like Gamasutra, they are not aiming for the casual gamer who only plays games on a smart phone. They are looking to attract people who are passionate about their gaming experience and who will want to buy their products. And in Intel's case, that is reduced further to PC gaming experience, which is a lot more male-dominated than the overall percentage of people who play video games on any platform. I'm going to guess that someone over in the marketing department decided that after reading some of her articles that they didn't want to be associated with her views.

Having read some of Leigh's articles, I lump her in with the "shock jocks" I've heard on radio. In order to draw attention, she uses outrageous language. Some companies will not advertise on shows like that for fear of offending their customer base. I think that's what happened with Intel and Gamasutra. If Leigh didn't have the title "Editor At Large", Intel may not have pulled the ads.

I find it funny that the losers in this confrontation are acting like a bunch of EVE players who, after getting beat, can only spout insults. Tagging GamerGate proponents as sexists won't matter if the anti-GamerGate folks are labeled feminists. If you look at opinion polls, at least here in the States, Intel's decision makes perfect sense. Feminist is now a dirty word, with a majority of women rejecting the title (one poll I found states at a 65% clip). Feminism no longer, in the minds of a majority of American women, much less men, is about equality. So Intel publicly rejecting third-wave feminist ideology is a net positive, at least in the States. But to cover all bases, Intel stated in its apology that they were not taking sides in the whole GamerGate debate.

I know I didn't address the "giving gamers a bad reputation" argument, but I don't agree with the premise. I don't think gamers have a good reputation as it is, so there was no reputation to throw away.

I merely mentioned well documented racist tweets and statements made by the Gamasutra person you appear (inadvertently) to be supporting? Anyone here can go out and find screen prints of them within 5 minutes. These are public statements.

Is that not relevant to the topic:

Gamers have called out and spoken out against misogynists so going mainstream shouldn't hurt the reputation of gamers.

However a well documented racist presenting herself as a representative of the "new" gaming culture and being supported by the entire gaming press who also represent the new gaming culture....

Well tell me how that looks to an outsider? Has anyone on the anti gamer side spoken out about the statements she made about black and Irish people? If they have I can't find them.

As I say it's your blog and your rules, I'm just curious as to why you start deleting posts when I try to do you a favour and point out who this Intel story relates to.

Could it be that whilst you have taken the line that gamergate supporters can't avoid being associated with those sending threats to women, you were offended when you were linked with those journalists making racist attacks on black and Irish people?

Believe me I know how that feels to be tarred with the same brush.

Can you imagine how angry you would feel if someone demanded that you "speak out" against statements made by a person over which you have no control and are not responsible for?

Woody, I told you stop spreading your Gamergate agenda here and accusing all sorts of people of all sorts of misdeeds which have absolutely nothing to do with arguments of the blog post. I don't give a damn if you've seen on some Gamergate site a screenshot which might or might not have been faked of Leigh Alexander using a word like hoodie which might or might not be interpreted as racist. I actually don't even care if she *is* racist. I will not allow my blog to be used as a platform for personal attacks against people.

Whether Leigh Alexander is a good person or a bad person is absolutely not relevant in the context of this particular blog post. Nobody argues that her Gamasutra post was not insulting to gamers. Actually she even said that herself in that very post.

What this blog post is about is whether A) attempted censorship of opinion posts on the internet via advertising money is a good idea, and B) assuming that most people agree that it isn't, how that is bad PR for both Intel and the Gamergate movement.

Wasn't it you who said right here that Gamergate wasn't about harassing women for their feminist ideas? Wasn't it you who said that Gamergate should be seen only as an anti-corruption movement? Where is the anti-corruption part in persuading Intel to withdraw money from a site that posts controversial opinions?

A) attempted censorship of opinion posts on the internet via advertising money is a good idea

There is no simple yes/no. E.g. "what opinions exactly?"

Firstly these are private sites and private ad money. There is no legal right to "freedom of speech". Advertisers are perfectly within their rights to withdraw funding and as a consequence censor (refuse to fund) any opinions that damage their business or corporate image. Just as site owners are within their rights to censor any forums they provide.

The site wasn't reported to Intel purely for that article although IMO an offensive mass brush tarring of innocent customers is something advertisers should be concerned about. It was also reported because Intel adverts appeared alongside opinion pieces written by an alleged racist. You don't believe the screenshots of the now deleted tweets are genuine but Intel did. You are entitled to your opinion, they are entitled to theirs.

Although I find this concern over censorship highly amusing given the thousands of threads that have been deleted in past weeks.

Was that censorship a good/bad idea? The Escapist thread is still going, is crazy long and apart from one or two people that were banned it is full of decent polite discussion. The editor of that site came under immense pressure from his peers to censor that discussion. Right or wrong?

I'd say that censoring the "kings" (consumers with $60 in their pocket) is worse than censoring elements of a parasitic media that is linked with alleged corruption, offensive remarks and alleged racism. Especially as the media is becoming less relevant to the industry given that publishers can communicate directly with the gamers and cut out the middle man.

I don't agree with "censorship" but I do agree with "Moderation". Escapist forum posts are moderated with offenders banned. But when journalists are offensive (or even allegedly racist)...well who moderates them? In this case the market did.------------------------------

B) assuming that most people agree that it isn't, how that is bad PR for both Intel and the Gamergate movement.

I think most people agree that moderating offensive and/or racist people is a good thing.

But as far as PR goes, as I've already said the Journalists have trashed the reputation of millions of innocent gamers by having friends like Jenn Frank post hit pieces on mainstream left wing sites like the Guardian.

She told the British people that gamers are misogynistic women haters that sends death threats. So what have gamers to lose?

Now the gaming media can report one of two stories.

1, Gamergaters spoke out against offensive remarks and alleged racism and heroically organised a campaign to stamp out bigotry and persuade Intel to pull funding from a bad site.

Gamers don't have a voice. If the false "bad PR" option 2 story is published then that is on the corrupt journalists and not the gamers. The journalists choose the narrative and the PR, not the gamers.

What about for Intel? Well I am not sure many of these social justice extremists go out and buy brand new top of the range Intel CPU's every year or so (I guess you don't need an 8 core i7 to play flappy bird on a phone and write offensive news articles).

I think Intel earned PR brownie points with the right people and prevented the damage that was occurring from their ads being linked with unpleasant journalists.

Dead easy for them to post a quick update saying "we support inclusion and oppose discrimination" which can be read in one of two ways as Noizy pointed out! Job done. Professional PR unlike the amateurs at Silverstring Media.

Woody, please link here just ONE racist post of Leigh Alexander on Gamasutra.

What would you say if I produced a screenshot of a racist tweet by somebody named Woody and used that as an argument to delete all your comments on my blog? Wouldn't you argue that your comments have no racist content, and that there is thus no reason to delete them, plus my evidence is flimsy?

What everybody sees is Gamergate doing yet another character assassination of yet another woman in gaming and then using "she is a bad person" as justification for trying to corrupt the free press.

I was vaguely aware what "gamergate" was but now that I read a bit more... I was so much better off not knowing. The time and energy people invest in harrassing other people is astonishing. And the whole harrassment is so disgusting. And to top it off there are actually people who defend the harrassment. WTF?

Whatever you think about a persons opinion it is never OK to send to anyone things like: "Next time she shows up at a conference we ... give her a crippling injury that's never going to fully heal ... a good solid injury to the knees. I'd say a brain damage, but we don't want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.". WTF? Do these people actually not know how wrong this is?

Btw, that Woody guy is one of the three I mentioned above. There is no point whatsoever to talk to him.

Btw, that Woody guy is one of the three I mentioned above. There is no point whatsoever to talk to him.

If I was talking *only* to him in my reply, I would agree. There is obviously no reasoning with him. But as a reminder to others that I don't allow character assassination and personal attacks on my blog, the reply was useful.

You're a braver soul than I to blog on this topic. Also, I suspect this thread alone is the reason you had to active comment moderation, I bet!

Only one single deleted comment (and I wish Blogger had an option to state reasons for deletion). Brave, maybe, but the gist of the post is that it is not okay for a group of hateful people on the internet to silence opinions they don't agree with. So I couldn't be silent myself, could I?

I used to think that it was the seedy underbelly of Hentai that would give geekery a bad name

I think most people just consider Hentai a form of porn, and not particularly connected to geekery. There isn't much connection to games, you can't find Hentai games on the big game distribution platforms, except for weird harmless stuff like the pigeon dating simulator.

If you wanted to give geeks and gamers a bad name, you'd make a video documentary how people behave to each other in zombie survival shooters. That would turn anybody's stomach.

"It is not okay for a group of hateful people on the internet to silence opinions they don't agree with."

I think the majority of 'Gamergaters' would happily agree with you on that, though they would have a different view on who are the 'hateful people' silencing opinions.

Their opponents would - and have - argued that just because like-minded journalists in blogs and their comment pages refuse to provide a platform for the expression of their views, it does not constitute censorship as such.

'Gamergaters' would - and have - responded that persuading companies to withdraw advertisements from sites providing such a one-sided platform to those who hurl abuse at those companies' customers is not censorship either.

Gamasutra can continue to post features referring to gamers as "obtuse sh*tslingers, wailing hyper-consumers, childish internet-arguers". But with Intel out of the picture, they'll be posting a little less of it on gamers' dime.

Obviously Intel saw reason to pull their ads, but really how big an impact on Intel's bottom line is the gaming community? Every thing I've seen (in a very brief research period) shows that Intel dominates the PC CPU market, from Macs to PCs to Servers. The only place they haven't made inroads is mobile computing, and they're belatedly working on that. Gaming PCs are a small slice of Intel's pie. Their true customers are large manufacturers like Apple, Dell, etc.

@Tobold-- I've been to board/rpg gaming cons, and I've seen the tight bonds that anime and hentai have with the gaming community. At Gen Con last year there was a game that had to do with furry porn, and of course there's the RPG Maid.

I don't think that it's quite a stretch as you think.

That said, I'm still amazed at how the Gamergate people will cut off their nose to spite their face.

Do I in true EVE player fashion savor the tears they generate due to their perceived injuries from a harsh and unforgiving alternative reality where (and I am assuming here) being a white western male means you're being oppressed when exposed to the ideas and thoughts from people who don't fill all three of those criteria?

Or do I just cringe a little, pretend they don't exist and try to ignore the rampant hate and bile some people feel compelled to spew forth?

Tough call.

One point that Tobold has raised that most of the gamergate-ish commenters seem to neglect is just how fringe their views really are. Most adults won't see this thing as a reaction against corrupt game journalism (serious if it was, why now and not n year/s|decade/s ago?).

To most people, the dominant narrative comes across as a charming mix of childish misogyny with a touch of physical threats and personal attacks.